Rinse repeat. The guy was definitely overpaid but none of that crap can do anything for your game but drag it down, either. It was a shitstorm of bad, from coach and player, and probably the worst allocation of cumulative cap space on the canucks over the last 3 years, frankly.

herb wrote:Do you seriously think that if AV/Bowness had given Ballard free reign to rush up and down the ice he would have somehow worked out? How would this have improved Ballard’s poor defensive play, spotty decision making and poor execution?

I think his strengths weren't exploited at all. Had they been, his poor defensive play and mistakes could have been covered up a little better by his linemates. Risk-taking defensemen can be very effective when the whole team knows that the risk is being taken - see PK Subban.

But rather than re-jigger the system to suit Ballard's strengths (the "square peg"), they were not used at all in the Canucks system (the "round hole"). As a result, you saw all of Ballard's weaknesses and none of his strengths.

That being said, I don't Ballard could be a "great" player on a really good team, but he can be top-pair guy on a shitty team for sure.

ESQ wrote:I think his strengths weren't exploited at all. Had they been, his poor defensive play and mistakes could have been covered up a little better by his linemates. Risk-taking defensemen can be very effective when the whole team knows that the risk is being taken - see PK Subban.

But rather than re-jigger the system to suit Ballard's strengths (the "square peg"), they were not used at all in the Canucks system (the "round hole"). As a result, you saw all of Ballard's weaknesses and none of his strengths.

That being said, I don't Ballard could be a "great" player on a really good team, but he can be top-pair guy on a shitty team for sure.

Agreed. Ballard played well with Tanev. They did not get any significant icetime playing along with more talented forward nor powerplay time. Anyhow, time to move on and I wish Ballard all the best with his next team.

ESQ wrote:I think his strengths weren't exploited at all. Had they been, his poor defensive play and mistakes could have been covered up a little better by his linemates. Risk-taking defensemen can be very effective when the whole team knows that the risk is being taken - see PK Subban.

But rather than re-jigger the system to suit Ballard's strengths (the "square peg"), they were not used at all in the Canucks system (the "round hole"). As a result, you saw all of Ballard's weaknesses and none of his strengths.

That being said, I don't Ballard could be a "great" player on a really good team, but he can be top-pair guy on a shitty team for sure.

What strengths?

After watching Ballard for three seasons in Vancouver, I honestly can’t say that I remember many strengths. He seems like a decent enough guy, and he’s a good (yet overrated) skater, but other than that there are many holes in his game. Undersized, poor decision making, not a high enough compete level, poor shooting and passing. He used to be known for being a pain in the ass to play against and for having a high compete level, but we have not seen that here.

Any of Ballard’s strengths were never utilized because he screwed up more often than not. He got zero leeway to skate up and down the ice with the puck because that’s what he deserved. He was supposed to be a “two-way” defenseman, but he never produced any offense and defensively he was spotty at best.

Ballard the player was a total bust. If any of the 29 other GMs thought all Ballard needed was a change of scenery, they would have picked him up.

wafflecombine wrote:Ballard is suffering from the new CBA like a lot of players.

I don't think being bought out for full price, and then still getting another contract is "suffering". It is really the players screwing the owners out of a lot of salary in order to get a CBA in place.

Ballard was worse off before the new CBA where he was only getting his old contract, and forced to play. Now, he gets paid his old contract, and has the option of finding a new team, and getting another contract. Double Dipping is the term used in government. So, please don't say he is suffering. It is the Canucks who suffer.

I know alot of ppl believe that Ballard wasn't given a fair chance. Once he made a bad play, he was benched. However, on the other end it can be argued that maybe AV's philosphy is a player has to earn his ice time. If he can't be trusted with little, how can he be entrusted with much? If a player is used sparingly and he makes mistakes all the time, why would a coach give him more ice time and bigger roles? Look at a kid like Chris Tanev, he was used very little when we called him up and he went up and down from the Wolves. However, as he played more, he showed he was smart defensively and he showed alot of poise, he showed AV he can be trusted and could contribute in a bigger role. Eventually, Tanev worked himself into a top 4 D-man on this team and a regular NHLer this year. On the other hand, Ballard never really showed much: didn't contribute much offense and regularly made mistakes. Other than the occasional beauty hip checks, he didn't show he had anything special that warranted being a regular D-man.

Reefer2 wrote:herb - you don't like Ballard so you see every mistake he is making.

I hate to say this but "haters are going to hate"

Wrong. This has nothing to do with me either liking or disliking Keith Ballard or being a hater. The fact of the matter is I defended Ballard for nearly two seasons on these boards. He seems like a genuinely good guy, but he should’ve been gone after last season when it was clear he did not fit. A guy like Rome or how Alberts played the second half of this past season is a much better fit for the third pairing.

At the end of the day, after 150+ games in Vancouver, it’s clear that Ballard just isn’t a very good defenseman. All 30 NHL GMs seem to agree. Not even a team like the Islanders, with holes on defence and cap space to burn, took a chance on Keith.

herb wrote:At the end of the day, after 150+ games in Vancouver, it’s clear that Ballard just isn’t a very good defenseman. All 30 NHL GMs seem to agree. Not even a team like the Islanders, with holes on defence and cap space to burn, took a chance on Keith.

Unfortunately, the same could be said for Luongo... Contract amount and length have a lot to do with it as well. For Ballard, if the amount is somewhere around $2m instead of $4.2m, some GMs might be interested.

herb wrote:At the end of the day, after 150+ games in Vancouver, it’s clear that Ballard just isn’t a very good defenseman. All 30 NHL GMs seem to agree. Not even a team like the Islanders, with holes on defence and cap space to burn, took a chance on Keith.

Is Vinny Lecavalier not a good forward? The problem with Ballard isn't his skill level. I believe he is a top-4 dman on some teams. His salary just isn't in line with his production. The problem is he's been a healthy scratch here, hasn't played awfully well when he's been in, and other teams notice that.

Ballard will play somewhere next season, nobody wants to pay him $4M when they can get him next week for $2M.

Reefer2 wrote:So I am confused (like what else is new) can he or cant he be bought out now?

I believe that MG needs to put Ballard on unconditional waiver again in order to buy him out. MG is probably shopping Ballard around for a cheaper buyout option. If the option is not available, Ballard will be on the unconditional waiver tomorrow. The Canucks can proceed to buy him out after 48 hours.

Island Nucklehead wrote:Is Vinny Lecavalier not a good forward? The problem with Ballard isn't his skill level. I believe he is a top-4 dman on some teams. His salary just isn't in line with his production. The problem is he's been a healthy scratch here, hasn't played awfully well when he's been in, and other teams notice that.

Ballard will play somewhere next season, nobody wants to pay him $4M when they can get him next week for $2M.

Other teams notice that he hasn't played well here? Gee, no kidding.

We'll see what Ballard gets offered when he's a UFA. I bet he'll get paid less than Aaron Rome.